OVERVIEW OF THE SITUATION

The occupiers are of the religion L.D.S. (IE. Mormon) who are well known for their non-criminal and peaceful nature. While their religious headquarters do not endorse their armed occupation they remain active in the church.

The occupational protest was ignited by two ranchers (Hammond’s) who were prosecuted, sentenced and then later re-sentenced; upon charges of a back-burn used to save their ranch and home from an on-coming wildfire that burned into federal land.

The demands of the occupying protesters are that federal land be handed over to the state and the Hammond ranchers are released from prison.

LEGALITY BASIS OF THE LAND DEMANDS

The protesting occupiers claim federal land ownership for land preservation is not authorized by the U.S. Constitution by any enumerated power (IE. The Constitutional powers granted to the U.S. Government).

Which reads, “(5) However, land acquired—through, for example, the Treaty Power—may be held only for enumerated purposes. Land not needed for such purposes must be disposed of within a reasonable time. The federal government should have disposed of BLM grazing land long ago.”

WHICH LEADS TO — HOW THE WEST LOST ITS LAND

The U.S. conquered the territory and residents joined the U.S. through State Enabling Acts

The U.S. under trust was to setup the state republic and extenquish those lands back
to the state.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/127/claims“to whom of right belonged the vacant territory appertaining to the crown at the time of the revolution, whether to the states, within whose charter territory it was situated, or to the Union in its federative capacity” was “a subject of long and ardent controversy, and…threatened to disturb the peace, if not to overthrow the government of the Union.” To avert a potential crisis, Madison successfully proposed that the Convention should be “neutral and fair” and “ought to go farther and declare that the claims of particular States also should not be affected.”

The U.S. failed to extinguish those lands and is now blatantly holding them hostage

Roe v. Wade supreme court hearing announced ‘fetal viability’ as the beginning of life. Which is the ability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus. Yes; This includes all modern day medical advances. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

At 21-weeks or less; a fetus CANNOT be turned into a human. There is 0% probability of saving a life and as such does NOT institute a person needing saved.

Roe v. Wade allowed the STATE legislative system to defend that now-child within the woman after the ‘fetal viability’ stage.

The Pro-Life movement was initiated by the Catholic Church. (IE. religion)

THE OBVIOUS:

Any abortion law should be lobbied to the STATE not FEDERAL. Lobbying that organs, cells or anything else that has 0% probability of saving life is chaos to say the least and can only be justified with religious over-tones/beliefs. The U.S. Government is not meant to resemble “sharia law”, so keep your religion out of politics.

STATE POWERS

When considering STATE level powers on abortion consider:

The life of that child/fetus is entirely dependent on being inside a grown persons body. Announcing legislature that requires the mother to serve with her own body that life-support is flirting with the most endearing powers of body enslavement. It can easily be equivocated to the same loss of liberty as human trafficking and/or legalized rape.

The debate is whether one life (which cannot walk, talk, read, write or even understand the gift of human life) on “life-support” can super-impose its “right to life” over the liberty of its mother’s body .

When all the smoke clears and religious theories are cut-out. The logical answer is that the power to sacrifice one life existing “inside” another’s personal and private body is far too personal to be handed over to legislative governments (Bureaucrats).

Let us, as a whole, not take judgment on gods territory of the unborn and accept that each to their own-will on private personal matters. We are not gods; leave godly territory to gods own judgement.

Once upon a time birth occurred; Some were born with penises and some with vaginas and with those natural elements came an epidemic of political debate and entitlement.

The Cause; An inalienable natural process that cannot be changed.

The Effect; A sure and consistent *FOCUS* that can never be eliminated.

As with any inalienable item, its only use is *LEVERAGE* to change other non-inalienable items. In political circles the more *FOCUS* it gets the more *LEVERAGE* it becomes. Feminism is “empowering women”. The phrase uses the inalienable item (Women) as leverage to the non-inalienable item (Power). Power is the debate and *SEXISM* is the leverage. Power is the ability to act or produce effects.

1) Contrary to popular belief; Women have (as far back as I researched) been able to own property, conduct business, work, keep and manage their *OWN EARNINGS*. However; In England, 1100 A.D.; A legal belief ( called coverture ) put married men and women under “one financial entity” where the male became the “Head of the household”. This law soon escalated into a power struggle between the men and women whom have *ACCEPTED* a legal marriage and as a result; the **CORRUPTED** view that women are property of their husbands emerges. ( http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/aug/11/women-rights-money-timeline-history ). This corrupted view opens the door to the feminist movement announcing the slogan “empowering women” but isn’t specific enough to say “empowering married women”. The all-to-generic slogan of course invites *ALL* women to jump onto the band-wagon claiming the victim and inequality (“male entitlement / privilege / dominance”) anytime and anywhere a male or plethora of males exist (IE. sexism).

2) Since women have always had free market rights – The plethora of males in the free market resources is attributed to “gender-roles” and labelled as being “sexist”. However, its quite apparent this was *NOT* a legal or dominance system (short of nature) that made gender-roles as it is so massively encouraged by advocates. Gender-roles are observed in every life species on the planet. While women have *chosen* to focus their workmanship towards nurturing other humans, Men have *chosen* to focus their workmanship to their environment (IE. free market resources) and as a result men have *COINCIDENTALLY* ended up *EARNING* a mass-majority of resources on the free market while women have ended up with other humans which *COINCIDENTALLY* claimed their own legal ownership/entity at the age of 18. In other-words; human nurturing doesn’t yield ownership or entitlement to market resources because “slavery” is a big no-no.

3) In a “free” market; Value is a reflection of supply and demand. When any person becomes dis-appointed in their own ability to produce desired market value (IE. market power = creating an effect on the market) in obtaining resources; it becomes far *EASIER* to advocate (IE. build public support) for *legally forced* sharing of market resources (IE. “equality”) using an inalienable *LEVERAGE*. Instead of working with the free market by creating opportunity and value; one can *TAKE* of the resources already in place based on public support of socialistic *legal* changes that *ENTITLES* inalienable characteristics to market resources. The difference being “play the victim” or “advertise the value”.

Finding the path of least resistance to obtain resources, desires and to sustain life is what separates humans from the rest of living species. When the “play the victim” is used to *TAKE* resources and encourage socialistic law it weakens free market principles; such as personal freedom, liberty, ownership, accountability and responsibility. Socialistic empires *don’t* acknowledge personal property/ownership or rights. What use to be “your earnings” becomes a collectively “ours” and now is legally conditioned on “sharing” those with a particular % of females at a particular % of wage with a particular % of paid leave. Making such items *legal* items removes the free market variable of value.

“These stories suggest a willingness of influential anti-tobacco activists, including academics, to hurt legitimate scientists and turn epidemiology into junk science in order to further their agendas. “

Today; the strongest studies linking secondhand smoke and tobacco harm are case-control studies; meaning the person with the disease determines on their own reporting whether passive smoke was the root cause.

But none of that really matters, Patel says, because the main goal of smoking bans was “to change societal behavior” by stigmatizing smoking, making it less convenient and less socially acceptable.

“The warning that “secondhand smoke kills,” with lung cancer as the paradigmatic example, played an important role in the debate over government-imposed smoking bans. By raising the stakes, it helped transform a complaint into a right, so that people annoyed by tobacco smoke now felt justified in demanding that it be eliminated everywhere they might want to go, including other people’s property. As another expert quoted in the JNCI article puts it, ”We’ve gotten smoking out of bars and restaurants on the basis of the fact that you and I and other nonsmokers don’t want to die. The reality is, we probably won’t.” Now they tell us. “

“There is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA ‘cherry picked’ its data” … “EPA’s excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA’s purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA’s Risk Assessment Guidelines” (p. 72)

“the lung cancer death rate for black males was more than 36% than for white males”…..”even though the peak prevalence of smoking among black males in that cohort never achieved that of white males”…”The reason for this disparity in lung cancer death rates is not clear. Differences in smoking behavior other than prevalence may play a role, such as the type of cigarette smoked”.(pg 95)

Graphs on pg 99 show increases in lung cancer rates with a large decrease in smoking rates among black & white males. “As smoking rates converged for white & black females in later cohorts, lung cancer deaths rates remained the approximately equivalent”…”despite lower smoking rates among black females, may AGAIN suggest a lung cancer risk that is NOT attributable to smoking.”(pg 108).

“There is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA ‘cherry picked’ its data” … “EPA’s excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA’s purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA’s Risk Assessment Guidelines” (p. 72)

I had a friend once (we’ll call him Fred) who was approached by another friend (we’ll call him Sam). Sam once claimed that Fred owed him money for new tires he needed to put on his motorcycle.

Fred of course was confused, “Why do I owe you money so you can put tires on your motorcycle?”

Sam replied, “Because I let you ride it.”

Fred replied, “So you mean to tell me —

1) I don’t own your motorbike

2) You emphatically choose who gets to ride it

3) When you allow me to ride it I owe you money for something you volunteered?”

Sam replies, “Of course – what did you think? Did you think Just because I volunteered to let you drive it that I was letting you do it for free?”

————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

We all know stories of this nature and to many of us it may seem a bit off; but when it comes to child support; this is exactly the same episode played out in the legal system. There seems to be this consistency that women emphatically contain all ownership of matters regarding their body, pregnancy and children while demanding payment for an act that was volunteered in the first place.

This stance implies the “rape culture”. One in which entitlement has gotten so far out of hand that the act of two persons of opposite sex having sex is treated like rape by one side. This is the same lunacy as saying that even though Sam volunteered to allow Fred to take his motorcycle for a spin; he actually “stole” it and now needs to pay up for damages done to HIS property.

Will the world ever *really* treat women with equality? As they say, “Woman up” – take responsibility for your actions and that would mean emphatically protesting child support laws.

I’ve always been interested in sharing my own thoughts with others but often wonder if others would be interested in hearing my thoughts. I guess there seems to be a human desire to be heard, noticed and for probably many of us – the desire to think of ourselves as a benefit to others in some form or another.

If there is one thing I enjoy more than anything is the comments from real people in the discussion section. I find that many of us here in the world tend to have ideas that usually go above and beyond anything published in mass media. I find it difficult to understand how we have “freedom of press” while it seems easily recognized that mass media always publishes and copies the same cookie-cutter stories over and over again leaving only the internet to really dig into the heart of matters.

This may be how I feel about the press but it isn’t “my world”. It is “your world” at the moment because you are the one reading this article from your perspective. That however is what I’m very interested in is “your perspective”. We all have different backgrounds, ethic principles, learned experiences and desires. For me, the comment section is one of the very few places a person can go to get a feel for various opinions, stories and perspectives in hopes to understand each others points of view and analyze our own points of view with extra bandwidth 🙂

I will be writing a lot about human characteristics including environmental influences, common differences between males and females, political concerns and general articles in hopes to share and enlighten “your world” with my own thoughts (IE. “my world”). Generally these articles will include smoking bans, feminism and government / work politics.